APenNameAndThatA

Flutter occurs because of excessive airspeed (actual airspeed, not indicated airspeed). I could not work out how an established, old, slow design could get flutter. Looks like I just found out.

Noted.

Another thing I should mention for completeness. It is safest when people do what they are *expected* to do. For example, I lost all the electrics (radio and transponder) in my aircraft when I was doing circuits, and it would have been dangerous to reach around and get my handheld radio. I considered leaving the circuit and getting the radio but decided to just do what the tower (Class D) would have expected me to do. I completed the circuit and taxied (without ground clearance) and parked and called the tower. It was a non event to them. An aircraft in the circuit making way for an aircraft joining the circuit would be weird. Making way without co-ordinating it with all the other people in the circuit would have been fully weird. So, anybody reading this thread, please don’t get the idea that altering your circuit to make way for someone entering the circuit is superior airmanship. It would be dangerous and dumb. The aircraft joining the circuit would be expecting you to fly a standard circuit, and that expectation would guide that they would do to best position their own aircraft. If you co-ordinate on the radio, and don’t mess things up for even more people, that would be different; but not possible in a busy circuit.

Take it easy, guys. Did I stir everyone up or something with my carrying on on the other thread? I did not think CO poisoning was possible but I didn’t want to rule it out completely. Turns out it was more likely than I thought. OP should investigate it carefully. Starting to feel sick *after* the flight fits with CO too.

Birdsville pub is across the road from the tie-down area. Amazing.

Yup. And the wood went back behind the rural brigade shed.

Excellent info. Thanks. I think you are right about the heavy landings. Someone said to me that it was breaking. Breaking and landings would both have the same effect on the tyre but landing heavily would both cause more acceleration and give the opportunity to shake the tyre off the rim. Ripped valve stems are a big enough deal to make the extra bother really worth it. This is also an argument against the indiscriminate use of baby powder.

No one called you wrong. (And I got my negatives mixed up in the comment you responded to.)

Do you seriously think that anyone does not understand that rigidly adhering by regulations does not always work? Do you seriously think that anyone would not exit a circuit to avoid a collision? I would have hoped so, but here we are.

Yes, I am dragging the thread out for my own perceived win. I'm pretty sure that you and Kyle and also dragged out the thread for your own perceived win. If either of those things were not true, the thread would have stopped.

So is everybody. 🙄

Didn't exactly address what I said, did you? And, yes, I would do the same as you. The issue of something being someone's fault and the issue of avoiding a collision even if you have right of way are different issues, as my comment about agency vs. fault explains.

You are conflating blame and agency. Suppose Brittney Higgins gets really drunk and gets raped. It is 100% the fault of the rapist. That does not mean that Brittney Higgins would have been safer and would have been wise not to have got drunk. It is wise to advise young women not to get really drunk but incorrect and unwise to day that if they get drunk it is their fault if they get raped. Same with having your car stolen after you leave it unlocked. To take up your position that it would have been better if I had spotted the plane, it would have been. But the pawnee was faster than me and approaching from above me. You are actually suggesting that pilots on final include above and behind them in their scan. I don't think pilots actually do that. It is quite likely that my view of the aircraft would have been shielded by my wing. To continue the analogy, I think that the situation would be more akin to someone not being drunk at all and being raped. Which leads me to your comment that the tug pilot probably saw me, a comment that you apparently stand by. If the tug pilot had seen me then he would not have flown up beside me. And, being a low-wing aircraft it would not have been able to see me from above. When you say that you told yourself that it was your fault when someone cut you off on downwind, that is good, because it means that you mentally take responsibility for things that are not your fault and thereby make your flying safer. The issue of how much one should blame oneself. Blaming oneself and one's mental health is actually an interesting area. If someone is depressed and/or anxious, they tend to blame themselves for things that are not their fault. By having the person look at situations more objectively and see that things that were not their fault were not their fault, they can become less anxious and depressed, because they feel better about themselves and their ability. Conversely, if someone decides to mentally take responsibility for everything that happens to them, they can feel better because they are less angry at other people and they have a greater sense of agency. The best situation can be where someone both lets themselves off the hook for their mistakes because they are only human, and takes responsibility for everything that happens to them. These ideas are completely contradictory but co-exist perfectly well. You know how sometimes you feel useless and at exactly the same time you know you're not? Same thing. No need to fight either state, they can both just co-exist. You need to be more sophisticated with your idea of "your fault" and "I make mistakes too". The idea of agency vs. blame might help. If your ideas become more sophisticated, your communication might be too. If you say "that was pretty much your fault because of inexperience" when the idea you are actually trying to convey is "that was not your fault but if you had a better scan, you still could have avoided the situation. But, I think that that give you too much credit, TBH, because you still apparently stand by the statement that the pawnee pilot had probably seen me. That's just bizarre. Also, there is the issue of the term "airmanship". As someone else here stated, the term causes problems. A similar problem occurs with the term "judgement". If a flying instructor tells a student that they are doing to teach them "judgement" then it causes offence and decreases the opportunities for learning. If a flying instructor tells someone that they are doing to teach them "risk management" then things go much better. It is better not to use the term "airmanship" and to use more specific terms, which can be operationalised, like "visual scan" or monitoring the radio." The same problem comes with blaming "inexperience". I have already remarked on your use of this term. My view is that, as Forrest Gump might have said, "Inexperience is as inexperience does". In other words, if I was flying a normal downwind and the tug pilot came within 30 m of me (after having probably seen me 🤪) then I was actually being more "experienced" that he was, regardless of our hours. If part of your job is communicating to others at Caboolture about safety then you need to get better at it. As for the timing. The incident occurred on Saturday 3 August 2019. It was reported either on that day or the 4th because I got a reply from the glider federation on the 5 th saying they were going to tell CASA. Had you begun at Caboolture yet?

The above is what a straw man argument actually looks like, Garfly.

Okay. Next time you are on downwind, and I join downwind next to you, and wind up 30 m away, the convo will go like this. You, "That was a near miss and your fault, because I had right of way." Me, "That was pretty much your fault, due to your inexperience, I could see you the whole time." You, "Why." Me, "Airmanship, and when planes collide, both pilots die." You, "Okay, I guess you're right. You should run an aerodrome."

Everybody, the above comment, which was Kyle’s original comment to me is what I am objecting to. He said that the incident was “pretty much due to your inexperience”. Since that has been shown to be incorrect, he has changed his argument to saying that it was still my fault because even though I had right of way was still my fault because I should have been on the lookout for an aircraft approaching from above and behind me and seen it before it got up beside me. It’s a way of backing down without admitting that you’ve backed down or were wrong. If two aircraft collide both the pilots die, even the one with right of way. I get that. Now I’d like to invite you all to reread Kyle’s original comment to me. See the difference?

Everything starts with a dream - preferably with a fairy god tax accountant. Maybe you need to develop a fascination with building things in regional areas? Take some lessons and tell us all how they went.

Follow the rules, like giving way to aircraft already in the circuit? I can’t believe I’m having this convo with someone who runs an aerodrome.

TBH, I’m amazed again. Do you have a thing for axes?

Going camping.

I'm pretty sure those were the findings. You know, the ones they changed when I complained. Maybe there were more that did not end up on my RA-Aus page.

😆

Okay

That was what my original post, that started the thread, was about. I don't know too much else, although I am happy to answer questions. I *assume* that RA-Aus told CASA (or maybe I even reported it to CASA) because there as a CASA airplane involved. RA-Aus finalised the investigation without even speaking to me in person. They just went off my written report.

I'm not buying it. You have suggested that it was my job to stay away from the other aircraft because of airmanship and that he knew where he was because of experience, even though aircraft joining the circuit have right of way over aircraft joining the circuit. That's just nuts. Saying that it was my fault, not his, when I was the one already in the circuit is just nuts. I think that you know that it's nuts, too, because it took you so long to respond to repeated requests to clarify your position. If I was complaining about a tug in the circuit being too close to me when I was joining the circuit, you would have come straight out and said that the tug had right of way, which would have been the sensible thing to say. Imagine if I was complaining that the tug did not make room for me when I entered the circuit and complained that the tug pilot lacked airmanship and had obviously not heard my radio calls. That would have been laughable. I hope that doubling down and being reluctant to answer questions that explore your point of view are just things that you do online. It's a pet hate of mine when people do it online, but when it happens in real life it can cause real problems.